BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 979856027144 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/26/2026 Mark Fickes

The Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. on 08/11/2026 is Granted.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

Before the Court are four discovery motions brought by Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM"), each directed to a single set of written discovery that Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra ("Plaintiff") never answered. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to any of the four motions, and AHM has filed no reply. As a general matter, a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to its granting. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) In the discovery context specifically, the court may grant a motion to compel and award sanctions even though no opposition was filed (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a)), and a court may grant a motion as to a party who fails to oppose it. (Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings, LLC v. Avery (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 218, 226-227.) The Court treats Plaintiff's failure to oppose as conceding the merits of each motion. That concession does not, however, dictate the amount of any sanction: the failure to file a written opposition is not an admission that the motion was proper or that the sanctions sought should be awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(b).)

The Court therefore grants each motion on its merits but reduces the monetary sanctions requested to reflect that no opposition or reply was filed.

BACKGROUND

This is an action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act concerning an allegedly defective 2021 Honda CR-V (VIN 5J6RW1H74ML010686). Plaintiff filed the complaint on March 28, 2025, and trial is set for September 8, 2026. AHM denies liability.

On July 7, 2026, AHM served four sets of written discovery on Plaintiff: Requests for Admission, Set Two; Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two; Special Interrogatories, Set Two; and Form Interrogatories, Set Two. Plaintiff's responses to each were due on August 10, 2026. Plaintiff served no verified response to any of the four sets. To date, Plaintiff has produced only three pages of documents, provided two days after her August 7, 2026 deposition. AHM filed these four motions on August 11, 2026. The Court advanced the hearings on these motions from December 8, 2026 to August 27, 2026 in light of the September 8, 2026 trial date.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of the matters specified be deemed admitted, together with a 25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 979856027144 in Department 518 monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) The court shall make that order unless it finds that, before the hearing, the responding party served a proposed response in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220; and it is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion. (§ 2033.280, subd. (c).)

A party that fails to serve a timely response to an inspection demand waives all objections to the demand, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The demanding party may then move for an order compelling a response. (§ 2031.300, subd. (b).) Likewise, a party that fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories waives the option to produce writings and all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. (§ 2030.290, subd. (b).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to an inspection demand (§ 2031.300, subd. (c)) or to interrogatories (§ 2030.290, subd. (c)), unless it finds that the party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. The court may award such sanctions even though no opposition to the motion was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) The failure to file a written opposition, however, is not an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(b).)

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two, Admitted

A. The Unopposed Motion Concedes Its Merits

AHM served its Requests for Admission, Set Two, on July 7, 2026, and Plaintiff's response was due on August 10, 2026. Plaintiff served no response, and the record before the Court reflects no proposed response, in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 or otherwise, served before this hearing. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Her failure to oppose is deemed a consent to granting it (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c)), and a court may grant a motion as to a party who fails to oppose it. (Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 226-227.) Independent of that concession, the motion must be granted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, as set forth below.

B. The Matters Specified Are Deemed Admitted

Because Plaintiff failed to serve a timely response and has not, before the hearing, served a proposed response in substantial compliance with section 2033.220, the Court must order the matters admitted. (§ 2033.280, subd. (c).) The truth of each matter specified in AHM's Requests

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 979856027144 in Department 518 for Admission, Set Two, is deemed admitted as against Plaintiff.

C. Sanctions

A monetary sanction is mandatory against the party whose failure to serve a timely response necessitated the motion. (§ 2033.280, subd. (c).) Plaintiff's failure to respond necessitated this motion, and the Court finds no substantial justification and no circumstance making a sanction unjust. AHM requests $1,390. Because Plaintiff filed no opposition and no reply was required, AHM was spared the time of reviewing an opposition, preparing a reply, and preparing for a contested hearing, and the unopposed motion required substantially less effort than the sum requested reflects. The absence of opposition is not itself an admission that the amount sought is proper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(b).) Applying an approximately 40 percent reduction ($1,390 less $556), the Court awards $834.

II. Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two

A. Plaintiff Waived Her Objections, and the Unopposed Motion Concedes Its Merits

AHM served its Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, on July 7, 2026, and Plaintiff's verified response was due on August 10, 2026. Plaintiff served no response. By operation of law, she waived all objections to the demand, including privilege and work product. (§ 2031.300, subd. (a).) AHM is entitled to move to compel a response. (§ 2031.300, subd. (b).) The court may grant a motion to compel even though no opposition was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion; her failure to oppose is deemed a consent to granting it (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c)), and a court may grant a motion as to a party who fails to oppose it. (Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 226-227.) The Court treats the lack of opposition as conceding the motion's merits, and the motion is granted.

B. Sanctions on the Set Two Motion

Sanctions are mandatory against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to an inspection demand, absent substantial justification or circumstances making the sanction unjust. (§ 2031.300, subd. (c).) Plaintiff has shown neither. AHM requests $1,390, comprising $1,330 in attorney's fees and a $60 filing fee. As with the companion motions, Plaintiff filed no opposition and no reply was required, so AHM incurred none of the anticipated cost of reviewing an opposition, preparing a reply, or preparing for a contested hearing, and the fees claimed overstate the effort the unopposed motion required. The failure to oppose is not an admission that the amount sought is proper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(b).) Applying an approximately 40 percent reduction ($1,390 less $556), the Court awards $834.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 979856027144 in Department 518 III. Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two

A. Plaintiff Waived Her Objections, and the Unopposed Motion Concedes Its Merits

AHM served its Special Interrogatories, Set Two, on July 7, 2026, and Plaintiff's verified response was due on August 10, 2026. Plaintiff served no response. By operation of law, she waived the option to produce writings and all objections, including privilege and work product. (§ 2030.290, subd. (a).) AHM is entitled to move to compel a response. (§ 2030.290, subd. (b).) The court may grant a motion to compel even though no opposition was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion; her failure to oppose is deemed a consent to granting it (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c)), and a court may grant a motion as to a party who fails to oppose it. (Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 226- 227.) The Court treats the lack of opposition as conceding the motion's merits, and the motion is granted.

B. Sanctions on the Special Interrogatories Motion

Sanctions are mandatory against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, absent substantial justification or circumstances making the sanction unjust. (§ 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff has shown neither. AHM's notice of motion requests $1,330 in attorney's fees and costs, although the supporting memorandum states a total of $1,390 ($1,330 in fees plus a $60 filing fee); the Court treats the $1,330 stated in the notice of motion as the amount requested.

Because Plaintiff filed no opposition and no reply was required, AHM was spared the anticipated cost of reviewing an opposition, preparing a reply, and preparing for a contested hearing, and the fees claimed exceed the effort the unopposed motion required. The failure to oppose is not an admission that the amount sought is proper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(b).) Applying an approximately 40 percent reduction ($1,330 less $532), the Court awards $798.

IV. Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two

A. Plaintiff Waived Her Objections, and the Unopposed Motion Concedes Its Merits

AHM served its Form Interrogatories, Set Two, on July 7, 2026, and Plaintiff's verified response was due on August 10, 2026. Plaintiff served no response. By operation of law, she waived the option to produce writings and all objections, including privilege and work product. (§ 2030.290, subd. (a).) AHM is entitled to move to compel a response. (§ 2030.290, subd. (b).) The court may grant a motion to compel even though no opposition was filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion; her failure to oppose is deemed a consent to granting it (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c)), and a court may grant a motion as to a party who

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 979856027144 in Department 518 fails to oppose it. (Champlin/GEI Wind Holdings, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 226-227.) The Court treats the lack of opposition as conceding the motion's merits, and the motion is granted.

B. Sanctions on the Form Interrogatories Motion

Sanctions are mandatory against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, absent substantial justification or circumstances making the sanction unjust. (§ 2030.290, subd. (c).) Plaintiff has shown neither. AHM's notice of motion requests $1,330 in attorney's fees and costs, although the supporting memorandum states a total of $1,390 ($1,330 in fees plus a $60 filing fee); the Court treats the $1,330 stated in the notice of motion as the amount requested.

As with the companion motions, the absence of any opposition or reply spared AHM the anticipated cost of contested motion practice, and the fees claimed overstate the effort the unopposed motion required. The failure to oppose is not an admission that the amount sought is proper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(b).) Applying an approximately 40 percent reduction ($1,330 less $532), the Court awards $798.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set Two, Admitted is GRANTED. The truth of each matter specified in AHM's Requests for Admission, Set Two, is deemed admitted as against Plaintiff, unless, before the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff serves a proposed response to those requests in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. (§ 2033.280, subd. (c).) Monetary sanctions of $834 are GRANTED against Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty (30) days.

The Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Set Two. Is GRANTED. Within five (5) days of this order, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, without objection, and produce all responsive documents in her possession, custody, or control, or serve statements of inability to comply that conform to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230. Monetary sanctions of $834 are GRANTED against Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty (30) days.

The Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED. Within five (5) days of this order, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, without objection, complete and straightforward as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210 through 2030.240 and verified as required by section 2030.250. Monetary sanctions of $798 are GRANTED against Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty (30) days.

The Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two is GRANTED. Within five (5) days of this order, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 979856027144 in Department 518 without objection, complete and straightforward as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210 through 2030.240 and verified as required by section 2030.250. Monetary sanctions of $798 are GRANTED against Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable within thirty (30) days.

The total monetary sanction awarded on the four motions is $3,264, imposed against Plaintiff Veronica Martinez Becerra and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, and payable within thirty (30) days of this order.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116942: BECERRA vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (Defendant) CRS# 979856027144 in Department 518

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)